Keven Windel and Marlene Windel v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough
496 P.3d 392
Alaska2021Background
- Keven and Marlene Windel own contiguous lots across which Davis Road crosses; several public easements (Davis Road, Smith/Johnson, Mason, Vision View, Biss) affect their parcels.
- The Windels litigated easement validity and related issues multiple times: a 2005 suit (Carnahan) and a 2014 suit against the Borough produced adverse rulings that the Windels appealed (and in one appeal the Windels voluntarily dismissed).
- In 2015 the Windels sued the Matanuska-Susitna Borough again, challenging the validity and Borough acceptance/maintenance of multiple easements, alleging improper redactions in public records, contesting construction permits, and seeking towing-related damages after the Borough towed their truck from Davis Road.
- The superior court dismissed 13 of the Windels’ claims on res judicata grounds, dismissed the Biss-easement challenge for failure to state a claim, granted summary judgment for the Borough on permit validity and redactions, and tried the towing claim.
- After a bench trial the court found the towing lawful (Davis Road a public right-of-way, adequate notice, vehicle abandoned) and awarded the Borough enhanced attorney’s fees (80% of actual fees) as the Windels’ claims were baseless and brought in bad faith.
- The Windels appealed; the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s rulings and fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata dismissal of multiple easement and procedural claims | Windels: prior cases didn’t bind Borough and some claims were new; privity and same-cause not satisfied | Borough: 2005 and 2014 judgments and proceedings foreclose these claims; parties/privities established | Affirmed — res judicata bars 13 claims; privity and same-cause requirements met |
| Alternate-access/easement termination (unpled/new theory) | Windels: they created a private 10-ft access that by easement terms terminated Smith/Johnson easement | Borough: claim was not properly pled and prior suit raised prospective termination; res judicata/waiver apply | Waived — Windels failed to develop argument; treated as waived/res judicata applies |
| Validity of Biss turnaround easement (donation vs dedication) | Windels: Borough failed required public process to accept easement; invalid acquisition | Borough: Biss grant was a donation accepted by manager, not a dedication requiring public hearing | Affirmed — court reasonably treated Biss easement as donation; no required hearing |
| Challenge to construction permits for road work | Windels: permits may be issued only to adjacent landowners; permits invalid | Borough: ordinance authorizes maintenance within service area; application form is not a legal limit | Affirmed — summary judgment for Borough; no legal requirement limiting permits to adjacent owners |
| Towing/due process and attorney's fees | Windels: Davis Road is private; towing and notice were unlawful; enhanced fee award improper | Borough: Davis Road is public ROW; vehicle abandoned >72 hours; Borough gave notices; claims frivolous | Affirmed — towing lawful and notices adequate; fee award within trial court discretion given repeated, baseless litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Mat-Su Title Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Windel, 305 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2013) (prior appeal affirming 50-foot Davis Road easement and title company summary judgment)
- Windel v. Carnahan, 379 P.3d 971 (Alaska 2016) (prior litigation history concerning Davis Road and easement issues)
- Patterson v. Infinity Ins. Co., 303 P.3d 493 (Alaska 2013) (articulating res judicata elements and scope)
- Conitz v. Alaska State Comm’n for Human Rights, 325 P.3d 501 (Alaska 2014) (res judicata principles cited)
- Griswold v. Homer City Council, 428 P.3d 180 (Alaska 2018) (procedures for in camera review and public-records privileges)
- Ebli v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 451 P.3d 382 (Alaska 2019) (summary judgment standard reaffirmed)
- Black v. Whitestone Estates Condo. Homeowners’ Ass’n, 446 P.3d 786 (Alaska 2019) (fee-award considerations and trial-court discretion)